Free Traders Case For Tariffs

[Hammster]

ICYMI: The Free Trader's Case for Trump's Reciprocal Tariffs

Today is Trump's much-heralded "Liberation Day". He may do more for free trade than all others before him.

open.substack.com

Donald Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs, scheduled to take effect April 2, predictably flummoxed globalists and free traders alike. Yet in fact, both groups should be thrilled. The real question is why they didn’t think of it first.
(And yes, there’s an answer to that.)

 

[FireDragon76]

Sane washing and hagiography.

Trump has no industrial policy to back up the credibility of his tariffs. The tariffs are also indiscriminate and will suck thousands of dollars out of the pockets of ordinary Americans in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Sane washing and hagiography.

It also cherry picks the tariffs that make its point while ignoring the ones that don't. For example, I don't see anything in there about the "Chicken Tax" that levies a 25% tariff on all light trucks.

More broadly, it ignores the fact that "free trade" agreements usually aren't about purely free trade, but rather about negotiating one basket of tariffs against another basket of tariffs. An agreement might reduce the aggregate amount of tariffs levied, but usually wouldn't eliminate them completely. (ETA: To clarify - the author doesn't ignore this point, but he does ignore the implications it has on his earlier points)

 

[iluvatar5150]

To some other points:

Tariffs may indeed be a tax on consumers, but only if they buy the products subject to the tariffs. This is the part lost on many of my free trader friends

The point isn't lost on anybody. Nobody pays attention to it because it, at best, is useless, and more likely, is a bit of dishonest rhetorical slight-of-hand.

Some products folks can't stop buying - at some point, you're going to need a new car. Or a new computer. Or a new phone. Or new clothes. Sure, maybe you can delay the purchase or buy second hand, but that's only going to kick the can down the road a bit. At some point, somebody's going to have to buy a new one to replace the old one that doesn't work anymore. After all, "second hand" isn't a thing unless somebody buys it new in the first place. That person now pays higher prices... for what? So that 10-20 years, maybe some of those supply chains will shake out in a way that moves some of the manufacturing back onshore? Ok, what about the 10-20 years in between? And what about the supply chains that don't move on shore? Those products just got more expensive, with no upside.

But say people stop buying those things, or delay those purchases. There were a lot of people previously involved in the selling and delivery of those products, who now have less business. Overall, this triggers a decline in economic activity, which is recessionary. HOORAY! And it falls disproportionately on those with less income. DOUBLE HOORAY!

 

[FireDragon76]

To some other points:


The point isn't lost on anybody. Nobody pays attention to it because it, at best, is useless, and more likely, is a bit of dishonest rhetorical slight-of-hand.

Some products folks can't stop buying - at some point, you're going to need a new car. Or a new computer. Or a new phone. Or new clothes. Sure, maybe you can delay the purchase or buy second hand, but that's only going to kick the can down the road a bit. At some point, somebody's going to have to buy a new one to replace the old one that doesn't work anymore. After all, "second hand" isn't a thing unless somebody buys it new in the first place. That person now pays higher prices... for what? So that 10-20 years, maybe some of those supply chains will shake out in a way that moves some of the manufacturing back onshore? Ok, what about the 10-20 years in between? And what about the supply chains that don't move on shore? Those products just got more expensive, with no upside.

But say people stop buying those things, or delay those purchases. There were a lot of people previously involved in the selling and delivery of those products, who now have less business. Overall, this triggers a decline in economic activity, which is recessionary. HOORAY! And it falls disproportionately on those with less income. DOUBLE HOORAY!

It's just playing a shell game or sleight-of-hand with the facts, carrying water for really stupid and idiotic trade policies and disguising it as a stroke of genius.

 

[Hammster]

Liberal arguments are henceforth deemed stupid and invalid.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Liberal arguments are henceforth deemed stupid and invalid.

Well, if your conservative arguments are so smart, perhaps you could make one.

 

[Belk]

Liberal arguments are henceforth deemed stupid and invalid.

Many have deemed them that way for years. It is not like some are making a concerted effort to understand them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Liberal arguments are henceforth deemed stupid and invalid.

when did the Republicans abandon liberal economics? They were the central organizing of the party since at least Reagan.

 

[Nithavela]

He could have done the exact opposite and his followers would still shill it.

 

[Always in His Presence]

From the link:

He’s already scored one huge win: rather than face the new tariffs, Israel announced yesterday that it is dropping ALL tariffs on U.S. imports. Think of all the years of effort put into negotiating “free trade deals” that weren’t even really free. President Trump just pulled off a 100% free trade deal without having to negotiate at all.​

Since the tariffs are reciprocal - (def. Expressing mutual action or relationship) - It is an easy way to reduce US tariffs - reduce yours.

Common sense.

 

[FreeinChrist]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/02/stock-market-today-live-updates-trump-tariffs.html

U.S. stock futures cratered as President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs of at least 10% and even higher for some countries, raising the risks of a global trade war that hits the already sputtering U.S. economy.​

​

Dow Jones Industrial Average futures lost 751 points, or 1.8%. S&P 500 futures dropped 3%. Nasdaq-100 futures lost 3.8%.​

​

Shares of multinational companies tumbled in extended trading. Nike lost 7% and Apple dropped 6%. Shares of big sellers of imported goods were among the hardest hit. Five Below lost 11% and Gap plunged 12%. Tech shares dropped in an overall risk-off mood, with Nvidia off 4% and Tesla down 5%.​

​

Investors flee U.S. stocks as markets react sharply to Trump's tariff plan

Initial market indications early Wednesday evening were that many investors had expected Trump’s tariffs to be far less expansive.

www.nbcnews.com

Global markets reacted sharply and swiftly after President Donald Trump revealed his much-anticipated tariff plans Wednesday, with investors fleeing U.S. stock indexes and companies that rely on global supply chains seeing their stocks plummet.​

​

The ETF (exchange-traded fund) that tracks the S&P 500 plunged more than 2.7%. The fund that tracks the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 slid more than 3.5%, and the fund tracking the Dow indicates it would drop more than 415 points at tomorrow's opening bell.​

​

Those indices just endured their worst quarter in years in large part because of growing concern about the economic impacts of Trump's expected tariff plan.​

​

Guess we will see how this works out.

 

[loveofourlord]

ICYMI: The Free Trader's Case for Trump's Reciprocal Tariffs

Today is Trump's much-heralded "Liberation Day". He may do more for free trade than all others before him.

open.substack.com

Donald Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs, scheduled to take effect April 2, predictably flummoxed globalists and free traders alike. Yet in fact, both groups should be thrilled. The real question is why they didn’t think of it first.
(And yes, there’s an answer to that.)

hehe I love these cute funny lies about the tarrifs when only thing they will do is continue to tank the US economy :> I'm enjoying watching the gong show.

Liberal arguments are henceforth deemed stupid and invalid.

those dastardly evil well known liberals like walstret and bankers and such that just HATE making money and the gop.

 

[wing2000]

From the op's lin:

Tariffs may indeed be a tax on consumers, but only if they buy the products subject to the tariffs.


One example - Vietnam

• A new 46% tariff on Vietnam could soon raise costs for major corporations in the apparel, furniture and toy space, and some of them may hike prices for consumers. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/02/tru...ld-raise-prices-for-shoes-furniture-toys.html

 

[stevil]

Sane washing and hagiography.

Trump has no industrial policy to back up the credibility of his tariffs. The tariffs are also indiscriminate and will suck thousands of dollars out of the pockets of ordinary Americans in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Tarrifs are a form of tax. a tax on anything that uses anything imported in the process of building it, shipping it, packaging it, getting it into the hands of the USA consumers. The tax on the importers will be shifted across to the consumers, so ultimately a consumer tax causing inflation of everyday goods. But on the good side, that money gets funnelled to the wealthy who enjoy tax cuts on their own business dealings.

 

[BPPLEE]

Liberal arguments are henceforth deemed stupid and invalid.

Tariffs are the only tax that Democrats don’t like

 

[stevil]

Tariffs are the only tax that Democrats don’t like

Have they all told you this? Or are you pretending you know what the all like and don't like?

 

[BPPLEE]

Have they all told you this? Or are you pretending you know what the all like and don't like?

Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like, until it came to tariffs

 

[FireDragon76]

Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like, until it came to tariffs

Tariffs hurt ordinary people, not billionaires.

 

[BPPLEE]

Tariffs hurt ordinary people, not billionaires.

The billionaires thing has been done to death. I even saw where someone said not taxing social security would unfairly benefit billionaires